346
Even with their thousands of users, the libs can't even harness a fraction of our power
(hexbear.net)
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
346 points (99.4% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15914 readers
7 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We only look monolithic to libs from outside because we close ranks against bullshit Western lies and propaganda. But there is ample disagreement here about China and many other topics, and we have it out with each other fairly frequently on the many topics we disagree on. We've come to refer to these arguments with one another as "struggle sessions."
For example, it's worth noting that we have anarchists here (among other non-Marxist-Leninist tendencies), who are often fairly critical of China when they have a chance to be, without annoying libs getting in the way of the discussion.
I realize you very much have a dog in the China-Taiwan fight, as it were, and I understand your reluctance to support the other side. But, while your island's history is not littered with as many atrocities as that of my own nation (the US), you really ought to consider, as I and the many Westerners here have, that your country is not on the right side, and is in fact the bad guys. Chiang Kai-Shek was a monster, and any reasonable person should want to piss on his grave. The most effective way to do that would be to work toward reunification, the one thing he opposed more clearly than anything else.
The government of Taiwan is allied with a genocidal evil empire (the US), and is capitalist, so that's a non-starter because capitalism is destroying the planet.
And Western bourgeois "democracy" is nothing of the sort; the government of China is much more responsive to its people than the US or any other supposed "democracy." (Hint: if the system always gives rich people what they want, it's not democracy, it's what we communists call a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.)
These are not points anyone here will concede, because your views on these issues are entirely clouded by Western lies and propaganda, unfortunately.
(Keep in mind that Chinese people do vote on their local government officials; those officials then vote on the officials one level up, and so on, all the way up the hierarchy. This is in fact fairly similar to the original form of government in the United States, in which Senators and presidential Electors were selected by the members of each state's legislature.)
You gave two conditions for reunification that would satisfy you. I explained why both conditions are unworkable from the perspective of people here, myself included.
Also, directly electing the head of state doesn't really mean very much. Sure the US president isn't quite elected by popular vote, but with only a few exceptions (admittedly, historically significant ones), the winner has won both the popular and electoral votes. Biden, for example, won both in 2020. And yet shit still fucking sucks here, and ordinary people have absolutely no say in government. As such, I would argue that simple popular voting for an executive falls far short of a good standard for democracy.
By contrast, in China, yes, President Xi can continue as long as the Party wants him to. Is that so bad? Don't you think the CPC would turn against President Xi if some scandal occurred that turned most of the Chinese people against him? Couldn't his long tenure simply be the result of significant popularity (perhaps owing to his apparently fairly successful efforts to root out corruption)? Was it really so bad that FDR got four terms in the US presidency? (The answer to this last one is a resounding 'no,' by the way, in case you're not well-versed on US history.)
Then there's the reasoning behind the somewhat-less-open forms of democratic government employed in socialist countries like China and Vietnam (called "democratic centralism"): if they loosened their grip on power, the US and other Westerners would seek to do to the CPC and its leaders the same thing they did to Mossadegh's government in Iran in 1953, to Allende's government in Chile in 1973, to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua in the 1980s, to Thomas Sankara's government in Burkina Faso in 1987: kill them, destroy their government, and undermine all of the goals they worked for by allowing Western multinationals to move in and exploit people and resources to the maximum degree possible. It happens consistently to every socialist power that tries to play by the rules of Western Democracy. Did you think they were advocating this stuff out of the goodness of their hearts? No, it's an ideology designed to allow maximal profit to capital.
As for your source, this is where Western lies and propaganda come in big-time. We have a meme here on Hexbear, "the same map," which we roll out every time there's an odious, right-wing Western source (and The Economist very much qualifies; it has a proud history that includes arguing in favor of slavery in the US during the Antebellum and Civil War eras) that puts out a map showing all the typical Western countries as "good" (by whatever BS metric the map supposedly indicates via color-coding, in this case "democracy"), and all the usual suspects as "bad." I could go to the trouble of digging into the methodology used here and point out the many ways in which it's flawed, but honestly I don't really feel the need to do so; nothing The Economist says is worth so much as the paper it's printed on.
this is such a deficient view of democracy that it doesn't even qualify as democracy in my book. the word means rule by the masses - in what way does electing a head of state, someone who is in no way obligated to respect the wishes of the electorate (cf US presidents and their inability to push legislation/policy supported by supermajorities of the electorate) constitute rule by the masses. merely electing someone passes the buck on from the masses onto singular, corruptible individuals. democracy means the democratic participation of the people in government and such a thing goes so much farther than mere elections for representative. compare Cuban democracy, where elected representatives are required to hold weekly, local office hours so constituents can come share their thoughts about policy and governance, to western "democracy" where most people have no clue who their elected officials even are or what policy decisions their representatives are taking.
dream bigger. you're setting a very narrow horizon on human possibilities in the sociopolitical realm.